Flu Jab

FYI.

The influenza vaccine is tweaked each year as the virus shifts and changes within the populace.

Official figures (CDC) suggests that it's effectiveness each year is usually less than 50%, a figure that it has bettered in just 4 years this century.
 
something ive just read -
Flu deaths over the last 5 years are between 11,000 and 28,000, this year 348.
 
Image may contain: text
 
bnet said:
Image may contain: text
Click to expand...
One essential step in method characterization is to determine the limit of detection (LoD). As this requires a quantitative readout from the assay, one needs to use a precisely quantified reference substance as calibrant, ie it needs to be known in the reference that the SARS CoV2 RNA genome is exactly present at a concentration of X copies/µl.

This statement simply means that this exactly quantified isolate is not availabe, but the isolate are available. The exactly quantified reference substance is available in the form of in-vitro transcribed RNA. This was used for the quantitative studies to establish the LoD.

This statement does NOT mean that no isolates are available. The CDC distributes currently 19 different SARS CoV2 isolates.

A very simple analogy:

apples = SARS CoV2 isolates

Do you have apples available?

Yes

Do you have buckets of exactly 50 apples available?

No

But you do have apples in store?

Yes, we do and we sell them in buckets, but some buckets contain as little as 40 apples and some may contain up to 60 apples.
 
Given that some on here seem well versed in this stuff, I would appreciate some greater insight.

My thoughts on testing run like this.

It is my understanding that the test we are using at this time is in no way specific for Covid 19. Any corona virus will give a positive including some that are no more than the common cold, given the enhanced sensitivity (high number of repetitions) of the test, this does not even have to be a 'live' virus, it may simply be 'fragments' or traces of a minor infection that occurred weeks, possibly months ago.

Given this methodology, the more tests you run, the more positives you get, it is these results that define the number of 'cases' or 'infections' and are used to drive the lockdown agenda. This is despite the number of people suffering real illness being quite small and the death rate from covid 19 itself being tiny.

That is my understanding in layman's terms, more information is always welcome.
 
jackieguaccamole said:
Well each to their own. Personally I wouldn't ever have one.
Click to expand...
I am with you here, if people really knew what was in them they would never have one. Does not help that the medical foundations are immune from prosecution for any side affects. I know this will cause a fury of abuse on here but just do the research its all out there.
 
Running Fox said:
I am with you here, if people really knew what was in them they would never have one. Does not help that the medical foundations are immune from prosecution for any side affects. I know this will cause a fury of abuse on here but just do the research its all out there.
Click to expand...
the people who blindly follow instructions without care for their own well being astounds me ! Igrorance is bliss methodology ?
 
AFCDorset said:
Given that some on here seem well versed in this stuff, I would appreciate some greater insight.

My thoughts on testing run like this.

It is my understanding that the test we are using at this time is in no way specific for Covid 19. Any corona virus will give a positive including some that are no more than the common cold, given the enhanced sensitivity (high number of repetitions) of the test, this does not even have to be a 'live' virus, it may simply be 'fragments' or traces of a minor infection that occurred weeks, possibly months ago.

Given this methodology, the more tests you run, the more positives you get, it is these results that define the number of 'cases' or 'infections' and are used to drive the lockdown agenda. This is despite the number of people suffering real illness being quite small and the death rate from covid 19 itself being tiny.

That is my understanding in layman's terms, more information is always welcome.
Click to expand...
I believe the antigen test (have you got COVID-19 virus) is pretty accurate in that it detects the specific COVID-19 virus rather than any coronavirus. The antibody test (have you had it) I think can pick up other types. It's the former that counts for the stats as I understand it.
 
The antigen test is supposed to be more accurate but is not that widely available.

It is not the test used to determine the 'infection rate' on which all the governments ridiculous decisions are made, that is the antibody test.

This is used because of it's ability to generate lots of 'cases', which for some reason is what the government wants.
 
SteveYork said:
I believe the antigen test (have you got COVID-19 virus) is pretty accurate in that it detects the specific COVID-19 virus rather than any coronavirus. The antibody test (have you had it) I think can pick up other types. It's the former that counts for the stats as I understand it.
Click to expand...
buy Covid19 as never been identified as it so jow can it be detected.
 
AFCDorset said:
The antigen test is supposed to be more accurate but is not that widely available.

It is not the test used to determine the 'infection rate' on which all the governments ridiculous decisions are made, that is the antibody test.

This is used because of it's ability to generate lots of 'cases', which for some reason is what the government wants.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's quite right. The antibody test checks to see if you have had the virus, ie has your immune system generated antibodies in response to the infection. My understanding is that it is this test that is not widely available, or at least not widely used (not sure which). The antigen test checks to see if you currently have the virus, with a positive result generating the recommendation to self-isolate and all that jazz so that you don't pass it on. It also prompts the trace bit of 'test and trace'.
 
Thanks Steve. I shall do some more reading.

My concern is that, whichever test is being used, the figures for the number of 'cases' bears no resemblance to the number of people getting ill, let alone dieing.

Test lots of people, generate lots of cases that justifies lockdown. No one even has to get ill, it's all in the 'numbers'.
 
AFCDorset said:
Thanks Steve. I shall do some more reading.

My concern is that, whichever test is being used, the figures for the number of 'cases' bears no resemblance to the number of people getting ill, let alone dieing.

Test lots of people, generate lots of cases that justifies lockdown. No one even has to get ill, it's all in the 'numbers'.
Click to expand...
I suppose the logic is that people with positive results (ie infections) can pass it on to other people, regardless of how ill they get. In terms of public policy response that gives you the numerator for whatever ratios are considered salient. There is clearly some disagreement about what the substance of the responses should be, and indeed about the thresholds or other triggers for those responses.
 
This turns out to be rather more complex than I imagined.

However, this discussion with Mike Yeading seems to cover most of the basics about the Corona issue, good explanation of how a viral infection works.

It looks at the effects of Masks, social distancing and all the other measures put in place and discusses the testing procedure at some length. It also debunks other myths about the 'second wave' and reflects on the performance of the NHS.

I have read some of this guys work before, but this is a terrific summary, quite long but very informative and comprehensive. I do not agree with his views on what is motivating all this, but the medical and public health aspects seem very sound.
 
AFCDorset said:
Sorry. managed to loose the link.

Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of what he says, but like you think there may be another reason for keeping us locked down. I guess in time, history will tell us what the real reason was. But logic says that this lockdown is causing more problems than the virus is. I have seen a few things on other boards were it is claimed that around the world people are making legal claims to try and change things as this pandemic cannot be supported by science.
 
Careful Richard, you are morphing into Bnet there.

That said, I think the vaccine agenda is concealing something very nasty, just not quite sure exactly what it is.
 
AFCDorset said:
Careful Richard, you are morphing into Bnet there.

That said, I think the vaccine agenda is concealing something very nasty, just not quite sure exactly what it is.
Click to expand...
Just seems to me the vaccine agenda is being pushed through fear without due diligence of the safety of the vaccines being used.
 
It's much, much worse than that.

You need to know what the vaccine is actually for. It is nothing to do with our health, that's for sure.

I hope it is just a huge money making scam, but I fear It could be something much worse.
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
I had mine about 6 weeks weeks ago. Apparently it contains dead babies but I didn't suffer any major side effects.
Click to expand...
It may well contain genetically modified stem cells. Foetal tissue is a primary source of such cells.

If you want vaccines/treatments that work on a genetic level, it is the price you pay.
 
if you've bypassed your immune system and mainlined a substance that you don't what it is, and if you ever wondered what the definition of stupidity, look in any mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top